Individual Utility Case Studies
The following case studies cover a range of issues relevant to municipal electric utilities and local governments involved in developing renewable energy. We hope these case studies will be instructive and provide insight, although they represent only a sample of the municipals currently working with renewable energy. Contact information is available at most links. Click on the company or municipality name to proceed to the case study.
American Municipal Power: Despite having a proactive goal to promote green power, American Municipal Power encountered high capital costs, uneven gas production and a mismatch between production and municipal load that created challenges in developing landfill gas a power source. AMP overcame this obstacle by pooling gas from many landfills into one source (currently 28 MW) and matching it to the municipal load. In 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency awarded AMP for this achievement with an Energy Partner of the Year.
Austin
Energy's GreenChoice program has had
considerable success with commercial and industrial customers, consistently
closing an average of two commercial and industrial sales per week.
Austin Energy allows participating GreenChoice customers to take advantage
of the long-term cost hedging characteristics of fixed costs renewables
by avoiding a direct duel line expense for the renewables portion of
their load. The utility also provides commercial and industrial customers
with tools designed to maximize the public relations benefits of their
participation. The utility also has a local Renewable
Portfolio Standard requiring five percent of the utility’s
sales come from renewable energy resources.
The City of Boulder GHG Report was prepared by a voluntary team of local energy and environmental experts, non-profits, city staff, students, concerned citizens and council members who understand the critical need for energy efficiency and renewable energy options. In 2001, the Boulder City Council passed a resolution that mandates compliance with the Kyoto Protocol and commits the City to a 7 percent reduction of overall greenhouse gasses from 1990 levels by 2012. This goal requires a 22.3 percent reduction in greenhouse gases below 2000 levels. This report is the greenhouse gas emissions management plan for the City of Boulder, Colorado.
City of Palo Alto: The City Council approved the City of Palo Alto Utilities' plan that 10 percent of the utility's generation portfolio come from renewable energy by 2008, most all of which will be funded through the rate base.
Eugene Water and Electric will be annually adding at least 1percent of its gross electrical load in the form of new renewable energy sources, with a goal to achieve a total of 20 percent renewables by 2020. This amount is equivalent to 9-12 MW of nameplate wind capacity each year.
Hull Light, Maine: At the end of 2001, three historic "firsts" were achieved simultaneously when Hull's new Vestas 660kW turbine went online. It was the first commercial-scale wind turbine to go online anywhere on the United States coastline between Maine and Florida; the first urban-sited turbine on the North American continent, and the first such publicly owned wind turbine to be sited within easy walking distance of a stop on a mass transit system. A substantial extra benefit to the town, the sales of "Green Certificates" is predicted to net the town well over $40,000 per year. Additional turbines are currently being considered
Longmont Power and Communications: The utility began offering its green pricing program in 1999 after surveys indicated customers were willing to pay for wind power generated nearby at the Medicine Bow, Wyo. facility which is owned by the utility's wholesale power provider and joint action agency, Platte River Power Authority.
New York State Electric and Gas and Community Energy: Utility partnerships with green power marketers are increasingly becoming an attractive approach for utilities to market wind energy to end-use retail electric customers. New York State Electric and Gas has partnered with Community Energy to obtain national expertise about green marketing, reduce risk, and enhance their brand image typically with far less out-of-pocket expenses than implementing a program by themselves.
Omaha Public Power District: In April 2002, Omaha Public Power District began receiving power from the methane gas produced at a local landfill. Four 800 kW combustion turbines generate 25.3 million kWh annually and engineers expect the landfill’s production could reach 30 MW by 2035. Omaha Public Power District has partnered with Waste Management which owns and operates the facility.
Platte River Power Authority, the sole wholesale electricity provider serving four Colorado municipalities owns and operates the wind capacity sold in the green-pricing programs of its four owner-utilities. In response to increasing customer interest in green power, the Authority's owned wind capacity has grown from 1MW in 1997 to 6 MW currently.
Roseville Electric: The city of Roseville currently gets 15 percent of its power from renewable energy resources (not including large hydro), about 90 percent of which is geothermal power acquired through assets administered by the Northern California Power Agency.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District: The utility currently has 115 MW of non-hydro renewables in its system portfolio, roughly 18 percent of which is utility-owned and operated. A utility goal to increase the renewable energy in its system portfolio will require adding roughly 2,000 GWh/yr of new generation by 2011. To meet this ambitious goal the utility is developing and integrating renewable energy generation in various ways: building its own generation; purchasing generation; selling customer-sited photovoltaics; and possibly the purchase or sale of green tags in the future.
Seattle City Light: To meet City Council goals for 50 percent of load growth to come from renewable energy, the utility be integrating a projected 100 average MW before 2010. Part of this will be supplied by a purchase contract with Pacificorp Power Marketing for energy and environmental attributes associated with 175 MW of wind capacity. Seattle City Light selected this contract because it provided a long-term fixed price for a guaranteed amount of power and was tailored to the utility's needs.
Spirit Lake, Iowa: The Spirit Lake Community School District has taken advantage of the wind resources blowing across the grounds of its school yards by becoming the first school district in the United States to use wind power as a primary energy source. The district's highly visible 250-kW and 750-kW turbines will soon provide enough electricity to power all of the district's operations, and excess electricity from the first turbine has already made a profit for the elementary school.
Waverly Light and Power: The residents and businesses of Waverly, Iowa are currently getting 5 percent of their power from wind and other renewables. Waverly Light and Power was the first utility in Iowa to own and operate its own wind facility in 1993 with the installation of an 80 kW turbine. The utility now owns two 750 kW turbines at the Storm Lake wind farm and a 900kW turbine in Waverly. The most recent turbine was installed at Waverly despite Class 3 wind regime because it was more economical to place the turbine on the distribution system rather than pay for transmission. The utility says the electricity coming from these turbines costs less than $.02/kWh depending on the yearly output and the availability of the Renewable Energy Production Incentive. Waverly Light and Power sells green tags from generation of these turbines.
The Town of Worthington, Minn.: A small town on the Minnesota prairie became one of the first in the state to invest in its own wind power. It received assistance from Windustry, an organization designed to assist small communities with technical assistance, project and planning and overcoming barriers to locally-owned and operated wind generation.
Austin Energy
When Elizabeth Kasprowicz of Austin Energy suggests benefits of green power to businesses, they are often most enthusiastic about getting the option to lock in rates until 2011 for the renewables portion of their load. That lock-in structure, applicable to every Austin business customer, enables renewable buyers avoid a direct fuel line expense on their bill (to the extent of their renewables purchase), receiving an effective hedge against fuel cost increases. The fuel line expense is helpful in that it is very easy to track and for end users to relate and anticipate savings. Ms. Kasprowicz is able to say with a fair degree of certainty that over time the fuel line cost will increase for most of the coming eight year period, increases renewables customers avoid.
While other Green Power Partnerships cannot point to a clear relatable fuel line charge the way that Austin Energy can, utilities can work with their utility commissions to design rates that will exempt renewable load from fuel and fossil fuel purchase power adjustments, achieving a comparable protection. Absent such exemption, most end users can expect electric rates to increase over the coming years as a result of escalating fuel costs. In such a climate, exempt renewables will over time deliver the benefit of not having to continuously purchase fuel—a benefit which can be shared and priced for a win-win with end users.
Indeed, to the extent of their renewable purchase, Austin's renewable end users already received this benefit during all of 2001, a period of high fuel costs. But while Austin cannot claim that end users will always save money by avoiding the fuel line charge in favor of a renewables purchase, many end users are willing to pay for the protection and predictability of locked-in rates. Likely in many cases they want to "do the right thing" anyway, but knowing they have a chance to offset some of their expenditure through the renewables hedge helps the medicine go down.
To be sure, public relations has played
its role for Austin, as it has elsewhere. Like other programs, they
have put together a recognition program, a public relations package
behind which they have put considerable effort and investment, by green
pricing programs' modest standards. While some programs have developed
multi-tiered packages to reflect various purchase sizes, such as gold
and platinum participation levels, Austin has broken their package out
more simply. They have one program for large and one for small businesses,
each with a set of minimum criteria for participation. This package
is conceived as a partnership between utility and end user. Austin routinely
places ads in the local newspaper announcing business purchases of green
energy, a "best practice" only a minority of programs has
adopted. "Commercial customers place a greater value on acknowledgment
ads done by their community-owned utility than on those they might do
for themselves, since it means more to their customers and employees
[coming from a third-party]," says Austin's Mark Kapner. Austin
Energy has consistently managed an average of two C&I sales per
week. It is fairly well established wisdom that green energy lends itself
particularly well to the direct sale, bringing it face-to-face to a
decision-maker. While most utilities have not dedicated a full-time
employee to the cause of the C&I market, as Austin has done, there
are situations where it would make sense and could even pay for itself.
In the Fall of 2003, Austin
Energy released its public Strategic Plan in which it indicated its
aggressive commitment to the installation of 15 MW of solar generating
capacity by 2007 and 100 MW by 2020. read more about it in the Strategic
Plan .
For more information, contact:
Isidro Rodriquez
GreenChoice Coordinator.
Austin Energy
Telephone: 322-6333
Back to Austin story
City of Palo Alto Utilities
The City Council approved the City of Palo Alto Utilities' plan that 10 percent of the utility's generation portfolio come from renewable energy by 2008, most all of which will be funded through the rate base. According to that plan, the utility can pay a price premium of not more than 5¢ per kilowatt-hour for the renewable energy generation, which would not raise the rate-base above $.05 (one-half cent) per kWh. The 10 percent goal was derived from surveys of utility customers' willingness to pay for renewable energy.
Currently, the CPAU's power mix includes 4 percent non-hydro renewable energy in its portfolio and is anticipating issuing a request for proposals in the near future for purchase contracts or asset ownership to meet its future capacity goals. CPAU would consider financing projects itself, but project development and operations would likely be contracted out.
The utility will have a preference for proposals with lower cost of power but will also consider other factors in its final decision, such as power reliability, the plant’s proximity to transmission, and the financial standing of power merchants. The utility will consider the renewable energy production incentive as a line item in a proposal but a proposal’s power prices need to be viable without it. CPAU will also consider accepting multiple proposals for smaller amounts of capacity.
Contact:
Karl E. Knapp, Ph.D.
Senior Resource Planner, Resource Management Division
City of Palo Alto Utilities
Palo Alto, California
Telephone: 650-329-2309
Back to Palo Alto story
Eugene Water and Electric Board
Eugene Water and Electric Board will be annually adding at least 1 percent of its gross electrical load in the form of new renewable energy sources, with a goal to achieve a total of 20 percent renewables by 2020. This amount is equivalent to 9 to12 MW of nameplate wind capacity each year. While this acquisition rate acts as a target, in actuality, some years will see greater amounts and in other years little or none may be added since economies of scale often favor larger projects.
In 1996, EWEB, in partnership with Pacificorp, purchased the 41.4 MW at the Foote Creek 1 wind facility in Wyoming. The utilities contracted with SeaWest and Tomen Corporation to develop and operate the plant because neither utility had experience in wind power development or wanted additional utility staff in Wyoming. EWEB now receives the energy generated by 6.5 MW of the plant's nameplate capacity.
The utility had initially planned to rate-base the Foote Creek 1 wind production. But with Oregon facing restructuring at the time, EWEB decided to try a green-pricing program to get experience with a differentiated energy product; to recover some of the above market costs of the generation; and because the utility has a very vocal group of residential and commercial customers willing to pay for renewables. Currently about half of Foote Creek 1 is subscribed in the EWEB green pricing program; the rest is rate-based.
EWEB used the renewable energy production incentive in the Foote Creek 1 project to reduce the cost of plant ownership. But the unpredictability of these funds has discouraged the utility from taking an ownership position in more new generation; instead they are favoring power purchase contracts. EWEB now buys roughly 5 MW of wind generation from the Foote Creek 4 project (through the Bonneville Power Administration) and 20 MW from Pacificorp Power Marketing, which has purchased the entire output of the 300 MW Stateline project on the Washington/Oregon border. Another contract with PPM provides shaping, transmission and other packaged ancillary services for the output from Stateline.
Contact:
Jim Maloney
Energy Resource Project Manager
Eugene Water and Electric Board
Eugene, Oregon
Telephone: 541-484-2411
Back to Eugene story
Longmont Power and Communications
Longmont Power and Communications, a public utility serving 34,000 customers in Northeast Colorado, began offering its green pricing program in 1999 after surveys indicated a sufficient number of customers were willing to pay a premium to support renewable energy in the area. The wind power is generated at the Medicine Bow, Wyo. facility that is owned by the utility's wholesale power provider and joint action agency, Platte River Power Authority. The utility's green power customers use just over 1 MW of the 10 megawatts produced at this site.
The program now claims 440 residential and 10 commercial subscribers who pay a premium of 2.5¢ per kilowatt-hour for the wind power. PRPA supplies the wholesale power for 2.4¢ and the utility adds .1¢ for marketing and administrative overhead.
Contact:
Bill Ewer
Customers Services and Marketing Manager
Longmont Power and Communications
Longmont, Colorado
Telephone: 303-651-8793
Back to Longmont story
Platte River Power Authority
Platte River Power Authority, a Joint-Action Agency, is the sole wholesale electricity provider serving four Colorado municipalities: Fort Collins, Longmont, Loveland and Estes Park. The agency owns and operates ten wind turbines at Medicine Bow, Wyo., with a total rating of 6 MW that produce energy sold in the green-pricing programs of its four owner-utilities. Some wind energy is also sold to Tri-State generation and transmission cooperative.
Based on customer surveys in the early 1990s showing customers' interest in and willingness to pay for renewable energy, PRPA had initially planned to add wind power to its wholesale supply mix in 1996 through an ownership position in a large wind project planned for the Foote Creek Rim area in Wyoming. Kenetech, the developer of the Foote Creek project at the time, discovered serious design problems with their turbines and fell into financial problems about the time construction was to start for the project. After this experience, Fort Collins Utilities continued to have interest in wind energy, but preferred a "green pricing" approach, via a pilot program. Platte River solicited bids from suppliers and developers and in 1997, began working with a developer to purchase wind power output from a site near the town of Medicine Bow, Wyo. Over time, this developer also faced financial challenges and was unable to meet its wind energy delivery schedule, so Platte River took ownership of the wind generation assets in 1998. This consisted of three turbines with a total output of about 1 MW, the bulk of which was sold to Fort Collins.
In 1999, Platte River's other members became interested in green pricing and requested wind energy supply. Two other utilities, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska were also interested in purchasing wind energy from Platte River. To meet this demand, Platte River installed five turbines in the fall of 1999. Further increases in demand for wind energy in Platte River's member cities stimulated the construction of two additional turbines in the summer of 2000.
The decision to take over ownership and operation of the Medicine Bow facility conforms to Platte River's philosophy and policy of owning generation assets to ensure reliability of supply, to reduce exposure to power market risks and to sell surplus generation to non-member utilities to help reduce member costs. The costs of the wind power coming out of this facility have been attractive since the first units were built because: the site was cash financed; the site was originally a DOE wind testing facility and so had existing roads, meteorological towers and other wind related assets; transmission and control area charges were low; and the site has very good wind resources (approximately 20 mph average wind speed).
Platte River had planned to add additional turbines at Medicine Bow again in 2002 to meet increasing demand. However, due to transmission and control area issues regarding the intermittent operation of wind turbines, construction has been postponed. Balancing and regulation costs (i.e. the costs associated with integrating the variable output of wind facilities into the control area) may be significant for the control area in which Platte River's turbines are located. These costs may be large enough to increase the price of delivered wind energy to current and future customers, although Platte River and its owners are reluctant to do this unless absolutely necessary. As of October 2002, they were studying the balancing and regulation issue, and planning a cost study in conjunction with the control area operator.
Once the control area issues have been resolved, PRPA hopes to meet future green power needs by adding turbines to its Medicine Bow facility, but is also exploring options for purchasing wind energy from other suppliers in the area. Initial feedback from customers of the green-pricing programs indicated that at least some of them prefer locally generated renewable energy, because of its benefits for regional air quality. If the results of the control area cost studies do not favor future capacity additions in the control area, Platte River and its member utilities may need to gather more information from customers regarding their interest in purchased wind energy vs. wind energy produced by future expansion of the Medicine Bow Wind Project.
Contact:
John Bleem
Manager of Customer Services
Platte River Power Authority
Fort Collins, Colorado
Telephone: 970-222-3958
Back to Platte story
Roseville Electric
The city of Roseville currently gets 15 percent of its power from renewable energy resources (not including large hydro), about 90 percent of which is geothermal power acquired through assets administered by the Northern California Power Agency. A portion of this renewable energy generation serves the nearly 600 residential customers (more than 1.5 percent of all residential customers) who participate in Roseville Electric’s green-pricing programs, "Green 50" and "Green 100". However, the majority of the renewable generation remains in the utility's rate-base.
In addition to its green-pricing products, the utility offers customers the choice of contributing to a "green fund" through a 1¢/kWh surcharge. The utility matches these contributions dollar-for-dollar with public benefits funds to finance utility-owned renewable energy projects in the Roseville area. Most recently these funds have gone to the development of two 18-kilowatt PV systems. Public benefits funds are also used as incentive rebates to help customers buy down the costs of customer-sited PV systems to serve native load. Thirty 2.4 kW systems have been installed on new homes during 2002.
Roseville Electric has no near-term plans to add new renewable energy resources into the rate-base. Nonetheless, it would like to meet the spirit of California's Renewable Portfolio Standard for obtaining a portion of new load from renewable energy by setting goals to increase the use of renewable energy through increasing customer participation in its green-pricing products and renewable energy programs.
Contact:
Carla Johannesen
Retail Energy Services Manager
Roseville Electric
Roseville, California
Telephone: 916-774-5567
Back to Roseville story
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Sacramento Municipal Utility District has set a goal to increase the renewable energy in its system portfolio from 7 percent in 2002 to 10 percent by 2006 and to 20 percent by 2011—which will require adding roughly 2,000 GWh/yr of new renewable energy generation by 2011. To meet this ambitious goal the utility is developing and integrating renewable energy generation in various ways: financing its own generation assets such as wind facilities and large-scale photovoltaic arrays; purchasing generation through bilateral contracts; selling customer-sited and owned photovoltaic systems through a utility retail program; and possibly the purchase or sale of green tags in the future.
The utility currently has 115 MW of non-hydro renewables in its system portfolio, roughly 18 percent of which is utility-owned and operated. This includes 5 MW of wind power at the Solano wind site and more than 10 MW of photovoltaics in the Sacramento area, earning SMUD a national reputation as the "solar utility". After almost a decade of divesting generation assets in California, SMUD has maintained its ability to finance, build, and operate a large part of its energy portfolio and the utility has ownership experience with solar, wind, geothermal, and small hydro facilities. Asset ownership brings project control and operational flexibility that can be balanced against the reduced liability but increased volatility of power purchases. This is especially true for the occasional boom/bust building cycles of renewable energy resources, and helps build a balanced resource portfolio.
The costs for the majority of renewable generation in SMUD's resource mix are recovered in the rate-base. SMUD also has a voluntary green-pricing program, Greenergy, with over 17,000 customers who buy a total of 93 GWh/year of generation currently supplied from landfill gas, wind, and small hydro. Customers pay a $6 per month flat rate premium (on top of their regular energy costs) for 100 percent of their energy to come from renewables. In order to maintain customers' faith in its green-pricing program (and all of its products and services), SMUD feels it is important for Greenergy customers to know that their voluntary contributions fund specific renewable energy projects that the utility would not get power from without their explicit support. In other words, SMUD takes pains to ensure that Greenergy participants' contributions are not used to fund renewable generation projects whose costs are otherwise dispersed among all ratepayers. To achieve this, the utility has separate purchase contracts for generation that supplies power to and is paid for by the Greenergy program.
Contact:
Bud Beebe
Regulatory Affairs Coordinator
Renewable Generation Assets Group
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Sacramento, California
Telephone: 916-732-5254
Jim Burke
Greenergy Program Manager
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Sacramento, California
Telephone: 916-732-5411
Back to Sacramento story
Seattle City Light
In 2000, the Seattle City Council directed Seattle City Light to meet 50 percent of future load growth with renewable energy and 50 percent through conservation. To meet these goals SCL will need to integrate a projected 100 average MW of renewable energy generation before 2010 (an average MW is the firm power available from the generation and is dependent on the capacity factor; for example, 300 MW of nameplate wind capacity at 30 percent capacity factor equals 100 average megawatts).
To meet this goal Seattle City Light issued a request for proposals for renewable electricity and received about 60 proposals. SCL chose a purchase contract with Pacificorp Power Marketing for energy and environmental attributes associated with 175 MW of wind capacity, of which 100 MW will come from the 262 MW Stateline wind energy facility. The additional 75 MW of wind capacity is from an undetermined wind power source and will be added in 2004. Getting timely and low cost power were primary criterion in evaluating proposals and SCL selected the PPM contract because it provided a long-term fixed price for a guaranteed amount of power and was tailored to the utility's needs.
Seattle City Light had also considered participation in a multiple-owner wind project. But the utility ultimately declined participation because it did not compare favorably to available power contract; the ownership risks were too great for a relatively small amount of power. As part owner of the facility, the utility would need to pay for its share of the facility's costs regardless of the plant's power output; in the power contract SCL only paid for the power delivered. SCL also had a greater ownership share than other owner utilities in this project and consequently carried more of the risk. SCL was also concerned that because more publicly-owned utilities were building wind plants, the availability of the Renewable Energy Production Incentive could not be counted on to bring down the costs of the power; the Production Tax Credit on the other hand, was guaranteed to the private developer of the Stateline project, Florida Power and Light.
Seattle City Light offers a green-pricing program, called the Voluntary Green Power Program; the voluntary contributions fund renewable energy resources in addition to those used to meet the City Council's goal and that the utility would not otherwise undertake. Forty percent of the program’s contributions fund the installation of photovoltaic systems on public buildings in the Seattle area. The remaining 60 percent will go to specific renewable energy projects; these available funds total a few hundred thousand dollars a year to pay for about 250 average kilowatts of demand. SCL has not selected the resources for this part of the program yet, partly because such small-scale demand does not provide adequate incentive for a developer to take on a project. Consequently, SCL has been actively trying to build interest among regional utilities for aggregating demand and funds. In the meantime, SCL is also considering the purchase of green tags, which are obtained from renewable resources produced in the Pacific Northwest.
Marilynn Semro
Power Management
Seattle City Light
Telephone: 206-386-4539
Back to Seattle story
Worthington Public Utilities, Worthington, MN
Since its inception in 1995 Windustry, has been committed to the idea that energy can be locally owned, and locally produced from renewable sources. The company provides wind energy information and technical assistance to farmers, elected officials, community-based utilities, and other interested groups and is recognized as a respected resource on wind energy development. Between 1995 and 1999, Windustry led landowners in southern Minnesota through various aspects of building wind turbines, from easements to economics, siting to transmission.
In 2000, Windustry was seeking Minnesota communities close to good wind resources and with a commitment to developing wind power by investing directly in wind generation. As part of its community assistance plan Windustry would:
- explore the level of interest, commitment and economic feasibility for at least two wind power projects under 2 MW;
- collaborate with municipalities, rural electric cooperatives, businesses, or other entities that are responsible for committing resources to generation projects;
- custom-design technical assistance for each case in areas such as defining projects, creating Requests for Proposals, studying resource and economic feasibility and transmission issues, and selecting a developer;
- provide expertise on project engineering and economics.
Windustry also encourages communities to rate-base wind generation rather than paying for it through green pricing programs. Windustry considers rate-basing a better option for the future of wind energy because it puts it on a level playing field with other types of energy generation and would add only a few cents per month to customers' bills.
Worthington, a city of 11,000 people located in southwestern Minnesota and situated in one of the best wind resource areas in the country decided to participate in the wind energy development project after Windustry Director Lisa Daniels and Nobles County Commissioner David Benson proposed the project to the Worthington Utility Board. Worthington Public Utilities buys seventy percent of its power from Missouri River Energy Services and 30 percent from hydropower provided by the Western Area Power Administration. MRES is a wholesale electric supplier serving 56 member municipal electric utilities in four Plains states.
The Utility Board created a seventeen-member community task force that would evaluate the feasibility of doing a municipal wind project. This task force consisted of community members and representatives from the institutions that ultimately would have the greatest control over the project's success: the Worthington utility, the city, MRES, and the utility board.
At the first meeting of the Worthington Project, in October 2000, Lisa Daniels stresses the importance of presenting options to the public and soliciting feedback. To meet the challenge of getting the message out, the citizens task force was expanded to include students, coffee house regulars, town socialites, and a representative from the meat packing plant, the city's largest employer. To obviate any last-minute resistance, individuals who were or might be antagonistic to the project were invited to the task force. The community of Worthington was given regular updates on the process.
The task force met about five times over six months. During this time, Daniels and Thomas Wind, an independent consultant specializing in power system planning and wind generation, presented information ranging from wind turbine technology and operations to the cost of wind-generated electricity and the characteristics of an optimal site.
Task force members made recommendations on four components: the number of turbines to be installed, site selection, rate-based or green pricing cost recovery, and start date. After considering all the options, the task force chose to install two wind turbines on a site west of Worthington and to rate-base the wind generation .
While the task force was reviewing options, however, two events compromised the project’s original goals. State lawmakers passed a statute requiring all utilities doing business in the state to offer green pricing programs for renewables. Also, despite support of the wind project, the Water and Light Commission determined utility funds would not be available for this project because of a previous commitment to build a diesel plant as part of a five-year plan to meet peak load.
As a solution to these setbacks, an interesting partnership formed between WPU and MRES which was now required by state law to provide a percentage of its generation from renewables. The partners decided that MRES would build and own two turbines while WPU would partner in building a dedicated feeder line from the turbines to the city. The electricity would go directly to Worthington, and the power would be paid for through MRES' voluntary green-pricing programs. WPU would invest in its own turbines later when it had the funds to do so.
Unexpectedly, at this time, Wisconsin Public Power, Inc., a joint action agency serving municipalities in Wisconsin, requested to be part of the Worthington project. Subsequently, the project capacity rose to a total of six turbines. Four turbines were built in June 2002; MRES and WPPI own two each. Two additional turbines will be built and owned by Worthington Public Utilities under a new five-year plan.
The most successful elements of this project were the formation of a diverse community task force and the process that Windustry was privileged to lead them through. According to Lisa Daniels, "the wind turbines wouldn't be there if we hadn’t gone through this process." Windustry learned four key lessons from working with the task force.
- Provide accurate information and sound technical support and allow the players involved to provide the process. Trust the people with whom you are working; stakeholders will make wise decisions if allowed to work in their own way.
- Introducing change to a small public power utility or agency requires more than providing information and technical support; the project developers need to allow change to move at a pace comfortable to the group and to provide an understanding of how renewables fit in the context of current and future electricity supply.
- People feel a greater sense of ownership over projects they have helped to create. From the outset, involve participants from the institutions and organizations that most stand to benefit or lose from the project.
- Present wind energy in a positive, but accurate and meaningful way.
According to Windustry, the fundamental lesson learned is that renewable energy projects are more successful when communities fully participate in the planning process.
For more information and a detailed description of the project and process,
Contact:
Lisa Daniels, Executive Director, Windustry
2105 First Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
(800) 946-3640
(612) 870-4846 (fax)
info@windustry.org
www.windustry.org
Back to Worthington story
